Longest (proven) matrilineal lines of descent?

[kur...@gmail.com]

Dear friends,

I am sure this question must have been posted here before--at least I
seem to recall it was--but I simply have not been able to google my
way to the answers, so here we go: What are the longest proven lines
of matrilineal descent?

Best wishes,

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
(an old-time poster who was much around ca. 1996-2005 but not for a
long time)

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/22/2010 12:50:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kur...@gmail.com writes:

> I am sure this question must have been posted here before--at least I
> seem to recall it was--but I simply have not been able to google my
> way to the answers, so here we go: What are the longest proven lines
> of matrilineal descent?>>

> --------------------

http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/longest-surviving-matriline/4hmquk6fx4
gu/238#

[kur...@gmail.com]

PS. I vaguely seem to recall that someone (Bill Reitwiesner? Paul
Theroff? Leo van de Pas? Brigitte?) posted some lengthy lines showing
how several of today's ruling families, etc., shared (a very few)
matrilineal lines of descent.

PKK

[Turenne]

Are you asking about ruling families or are you including noble
families? There are one or two Spanish dukedoms that have consistently
passed down through the female line.

Richard Lichten

[M Sjostrom]

such matrilines have been found here in several earlier discussions. having
taken part in seeking such,I remember some, but I really hope some search
engine starts to work so you get them found by your own efforts (I surely do
not remember all details).

I recall this one as one of contenders for being longest and starting
earliest
this one produced helluva lot royals and rulers (or, at least, their wives
and daughters) and possibly is the earliest known start (but then,if I
recall, there was some uncertainty about one or two earliest female
generations, so it might just lose its longevity in favor of some other...)
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00050322&tree=LEO&displayoption=female&generations=6
as a diversion, since matriline passes the mt dna, this matriline appears to
be of mt dna haplo H, i.e 'daughters of Helena', the most common european mt
dna

and this produced many royals, but is not so early known
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00108916&tree=LEO&displayoption=female&generations=6
its haplo is T, 'daughters of Tara', and this is a suitable heritage from
Rhaetian mountaineous terrain which received its Tuscans and such...

also this is one of high-volume royalty-poiducers, but not the earliest in
any case, and besides some say that it breaks in the spot of Basque ciuntry,
so it just might lose a handful of generations, making it a modest one in
comparison ....
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00120884&tree=LEO&displayoption=female&generations=6
also haplo H, 'daughters of Helena'

as I recall, one of the longest contenders, and coming from one of the
earliest women (such as I recall date estimates, this started now over 900
years ago, but that it's not probably the earliest known), was the Irish
lineage
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00544926&tree=LEO&displayoption=female&generations=6

and now that I have shown the technique, you could possibly search others
from Genealogics, if you want.

[the_ver...@comcast.net]

Peter,

The longest matrilineal line belong to the the newest born human-
whoever and wherever they are.
Their very birth proves their descent.

;)

[Peter Stewart]

<the_ver...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c187c92b-01c6-49cd...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

That's not true - for instance, the newest-born human being could be an aunt
or uncle at birth of a niece or nephew whose matrilineal line was longer by
one.

The number of generations from the first reproducing female (or any other
ancestress) can't be assumed just from an individual's age.

Peter Stewart

[Turenne]

> On Jun 22, 2:45 am, "kurr...@politik.dk" <kurr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I am sure this question must have been posted here before--at least I
> > seem to recall it was--but I simply have not been able to google my
> > way to the answers, so here we go: What are the longest proven lines
> > of matrilineal descent?

A friend was kind enough to send me the following:

Among the Grandees of 1520 the Dukedom of Nájera passed mostly through
female line.

Dukedom of Nájera [1482]: Manrique de Lara - Cárdenas - Hurtado de
Mendoza - Cárdenas - Fernández de Velasco - Guevara - Portocarrero -
Ponce de León - Guzmán - Zabala - García-Sancho - Travesedo

Richard L

[M Sjostrom]

> Among the Grandees of 1520 the Dukedom of Nájera passed mostly through
> female line.
>
> Dukedom of Nájera [1482]: Manrique de Lara - Cárdenas - Hurtado de
> Mendoza - Cárdenas - Fernández de Velasco - Guevara - Portocarrero -
> Ponce de León - Guzmán - Zabala - García-Sancho - Travesedo

aha.

you mean most of these after middle ages were an unbroken matriline?

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2009-07/1248017549

is it true: a really unbroken matriline?

----

these Najeras were in no way the longest matriline. Here presented already
longer matrilines starting from high middle ages. see messages above

[Kevin Bradford]

Actually, when I originally started this thread in '09 I was looking to see if contemporary persons (e.g., members of this list) had a proven matriline for themselves that stretched back to the medieval era.

My immigrant matriline, Alice Freeman Thompson Parke (c1592-1665) of Mystic, CT, was the great-granddaughter of Jane Bond Coles of Northamptonshire, a member of the landed gentry. Alice has been the subject of discussion on this forum as well as the focus of a study of her Boston Brahmin direct descendants.

Kevin

> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:29:43 +0300
> Subject: Re: Longest (proven) matrilineal lines of descent?
> From: mqs...@gmail.com
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/23/2010 4:11:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
plantag...@hotmail.com writes:

> My immigrant matriline, Alice Freeman Thompson Parke (c1592-1665) of
> Mystic, CT, was the great-granddaughter of Jane Bond Coles of Northamptonshire,
> >>

What evidence tells us that Alice was born "c1592" ?
I don't have that in my database.
Thanks
Will

[Kevin Bradford]

Estimate based on ages of family members. I've seen no baptismal or other corroborating proofs of her DOB.

From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:17:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Longest (proven) matrilineal lines of descent?

To: plantag...@hotmail.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Thanks

Will
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/23/2010 4:35:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
plantag...@hotmail.com writes:

> Estimate based on ages of family members. I've seen no baptismal or
> other corroborating proofs of her DOB. >>

What ages and what family members?
c1592 is a very very exact answer if you're really trying to say 1580 to
1600

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.talk.royalty kur...@politik.dk <kur...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Dear friends,

:
: I am sure this question must have been posted here before--at least I
: seem to recall it was--but I simply have not been able to google my
: way to the answers, so here we go: What are the longest proven lines
: of matrilineal descent?

Not sure,but here's all that's known of Queen Elizabeth II's:

1.Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary(born 21st April 1926)
3.Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon(4th Aug 1900-30th Mar 2002)
7.Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck(11th Sep 1862-23rd Jun 1938)
[Nina Cecilia to Burke's and Montague-Smith;Cecilia Nina
to Debrett's and at Hull;Cecilia,only,at Geocities]
*15.Caroline Louisa Burnaby(1832-1918)
[first missing birthday,first missing death day at Hull...Paget
says died |6th Jul| and that she was born 1833,Davies notes Dec
5th 1832 baptism]
*31.Anne Caroline Salisbury(1806-3rd May 1881)
[Davies notes 5th Dec 1805 baptism record]
*63.Frances Webb [Paget and Geocities(which dates her ((1778-1854))) agree
as does Davies,who says ||baptized 12th Jun 1775,died 22nd Jan 1862||;
Mary Lister,says Paul Theroff]
*127.||Mary Garritt||

My own goes back further,to a woman who lived 1651-1711,
ten generations back.

: Best wishes,

:
: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard
: (an old-time poster who was much around ca. 1996-2005 but not for a
: long time)

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/23/2010 9:05:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
l...@main.put.com writes:

> 1.Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary(born 21st April 1926)
> 3.Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon(4th Aug 1900-30th Mar 2002)
> 7.Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck(11th Sep 1862-23rd Jun 1938)
> [Nina Cecilia to Burke's and Montague-Smith;Cecilia Nina
> to Debrett's and at Hull;Cecilia,only,at Geocities]
> *15.Caroline Louisa Burnaby(1832-1918)
> [first missing birthday,first missing death day at Hull...Paget
> says died |6th Jul| and that she was born 1833,Davies notes Dec
> 5th 1832 baptism]
> *31.Anne Caroline Salisbury(1806-3rd May 1881)
> [Davies notes 5th Dec 1805 baptism record]
> *63.Frances Webb [Paget and Geocities(which dates her ((1778-1854))) agree
> as does Davies,who says ||baptized 12th Jun 1775,died 22nd Jan 1862||;
> Mary Lister,says Paul Theroff]
> *127.||Mary Garritt|| >>

----------------------------------------------

Of course, garbage in, garbage out.
"Geocities" is not a source, it's a repository -- They host thousands of
different sources, 99.9% of them worthless junk.
Family Gedcom postings are worthless junk.

Hull is about as good as I can throw it across the room.
Paget has so many errors, he should be taken out behind the barn.

There are worthwhile ways to achieve the same results. But if you source
your information to OPG (other people's garbage), you're just going to have
to start all over again when you realize it's garbage.

[norenxaq]

WJho...@aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 6/23/2010 9:05:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>l...@main.put.com writes:
>
>
>
>
>>1.Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary(born 21st April 1926)
>>3.Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon(4th Aug 1900-30th Mar 2002)
>>7.Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck(11th Sep 1862-23rd Jun 1938)
>> [Nina Cecilia to Burke's and Montague-Smith;Cecilia Nina
>> to Debrett's and at Hull;Cecilia,only,at Geocities]
>>*15.Caroline Louisa Burnaby(1832-1918)
>> [first missing birthday,first missing death day at Hull...Paget
>> says died |6th Jul| and that she was born 1833,Davies notes Dec
>> 5th 1832 baptism]
>>*31.Anne Caroline Salisbury(1806-3rd May 1881)
>> [Davies notes 5th Dec 1805 baptism record]
>>*63.Frances Webb [Paget and Geocities(which dates her ((1778-1854))) agree
>> as does Davies,who says ||baptized 12th Jun 1775,died 22nd Jan 1862||;
>> Mary Lister,says Paul Theroff]
>>*127.||Mary Garritt|| >>
>>
>>
>----------------------------------------------
>
>
>Of course, garbage in, garbage out.
>"Geocities" is not a source, it's a repository
>

that was removed entirely recently

[wjhonson]

On Jun 23, 10:29 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/23/2010 9:05:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
>
>
> l...@main.put.com writes:
> > 1.Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary(born 21st April 1926)
> > 3.Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon(4th Aug 1900-30th Mar 2002)
> > 7.Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck(11th Sep 1862-23rd Jun 1938)
> >     [Nina Cecilia to Burke's and Montague-Smith;Cecilia Nina
> >     to Debrett's and at Hull;Cecilia,only,at Geocities]
> > *15.Caroline Louisa Burnaby(1832-1918)
> >     [first missing birthday,first missing death day at Hull...Paget
> >     says died |6th Jul| and that she was born 1833,Davies notes Dec
> >     5th 1832 baptism]
> > *31.Anne Caroline Salisbury(1806-3rd May 1881)
> >     [Davies notes 5th Dec 1805 baptism record]
> > *63.Frances Webb [Paget and Geocities(which dates her ((1778-1854))) agree
> >     as does Davies,who says ||baptized 12th Jun 1775,died 22nd Jan 1862||;
> >     Mary Lister,says Paul Theroff]
> > *127.||Mary Garritt||  >>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>

Louis Epstein privately asked me what sources I *would* use on the
above matrilineal line.
For example, for Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck he cites Burke's,
Montague-Smith, Debrett's, Hull and Geocities
apparently they are in confusion as to her actual name.

For persons of some note, the best secondary citation today is
probably Wikipedia, believe it or don't.
For persons of marginal note, it can be the worst.

Why?
The fault of many secondary sources, is that they are created by a
single dilettante with a lot of spare time on their hands, and never
see a Corrections volume.

Wikipedia on the other hand, has turned that world upside-down. The
corrections on some articles come in fifty to the hour. Others sit
for months without change.

Why can you trust Wikipedia? Because those articles which are viewed
with a frequency exceeding a hundred persons an hour, have the
opportunity to be corrected by each of those persons.

Look at the article for this person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Bowes-Lyon,_Countess_of_Strathmore_and_Kinghorne

You will find citations to secondary biographies on the Queen Mother
Elizabeth, and also to primary documents like the census, marriage,
and a newspaper article.

Even should you choose not to cite Wikipedia, it is a good source for
digging up other secondary and primary sources may exist. It's not
complete, but it's 101% better than Paget, Geocites or Hull. And it's
rapidly becoming better, if not already better than works like
Burke's, which rarely if ever cites their own sources for statements
they make.

In my database I'm trying to cite all my famous people first to
Wikipedia, thePeerage.com, Genealogics. All three of which cite their
sources. Then the next level of citation overview would be works like
DNB, CP, the Burkes volumes, SP and the Visitations. Then the next
level would be citing down to the actual primary source documents like
census, BMD, newspapers, A2A and so on.

Works which don't cite their sources, in today's world are merely
creating more *noise* which should be ignored.

Will

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/24/2010 3:05:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > > *63.Frances Webb [Paget and Geocities(which dates her ((1778-1854)))
> agree
> > > as does Davies,who says ||baptized 12th Jun 1775,died 22nd Jan
> 1862||;
> > > Mary Lister,says Paul Theroff]
> > > *127.||Mary Garritt|| >>

By the way, for Frances Webb the only citation you need for a baptismal
date is
12 Jun 1775 Stanway, co Gloucs (IGI Batch C057791 wj)

I just looked it up. The primary source here is
Bishop's transcripts for Stanway, 1580-1812
Church of England. Parish Church of Stanway (Gloucestershire)

So anyone wishing to persue details of Mary [Garritt] should be looking at
this source at least.

Will

[WJho...@aol.com]

As long as we're on the Queen's lineage, I notice that Leo is showing
(citing Edward Davies work Caroline Louisa Burnaby seize quarters) that the
Queen's ancestor John Webb was bap 11 Jun 1715 at Stanway, which is in co Glouc.
but Leo is showing no parents for this man.

This particular John Webb has a bap entry at Stanway as said, on this date,
which states that his parents were John Webb and Sarah. Also born to a
John Webb and Sarah two years later was a Mary Webb bap 22 Sep 1717 at Stanway.

At Stanway, of an age to be the father was John Webb bap 17 Jul 1688 to
Giles Webb and An. Also bap to this same Giles Webb and Ann at Stanway 9 May
1690 was a Mary.

Giles Webb is such a rare name that one would think, one could find, if
anything exists at Stanway or Winchecombe, or that area in Glouc any sort of
probate or A2A entry for this Webb family which might be able to connect it
back further, or at least fill in the maiden names of this Anne and Sarah.

Will Johnson

[WJho...@aol.com]

Francis Webb died testate so by getting a copy of his will you might make a
strike at his wife Mary [called Garrett] by proving if she was yet living
or deceased

>From A2A
[no title] 727/5/8 1826-1854
Contents:Deeds of the Oaksey Park House estate and the trust created by the
will of Francis Webb (d.1814) in favour of his daughter Mrs. Frances
Salisbury and her daughters and of his estates in Marnhull and Manston, Dorset.

[wjhonson]

Here is another possible helpful clue in the identification of
Francis' wife Mary.
All these below mentioned properties *came* from somewhere. They
don't just spontaneously appear in a family without that family either
having purchased them, been granted them, or inherited them.
Any or all of these *could* have come through Mary. So tracing the
ownership of these properties backward from 1854, you should be able
to determine if perhaps some co-heiress Mary got them, or was given
them when she married, or something else.

It's at least an avenue to investigate.
The below at least allows us to add that Anne Caroline Salisbury was a
co-heiress of her mother.
I hadn't known that prior to finding this.

From A2A
[no title] 2475/1 1854-1917
Related information: See Victoria County History Vol.14.
Administrative history:
The estate was inherited by Frances Salisbury (d.1862) from her
father, Francis Webb and was passed to her daughters Maria (d.1882),
Sophia (d.1886) and Ann Caroline, wife of Edwyn Burnaby by a deed of
partition and settlement in 1854. This deeds also refers to property
at Kington Magna, Marnhull and Sturminster Newton, Dorset and
Henstridge and Horsington, Somerset.
In 1875 an appointment was made in favour of the nephew Edwyn Sherard
Burnaby and the estate was subsequently inherited by his son, Algernon
Edwyn Burnaby.
The estate was sold to L.J. Baker in 1906.
Contents:
Deeds of the Oaksey Park estate (also described as the Manor Of
Oaksey) including Park House, later known as the Manor House, Park
Farm, Woodfalls Farm and Street Farm, Oaksey and lands in Crudwell and
Minety. Most of the deeds have plans. With abstract of title
1795-1875.

[Louis Epstein]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 WJho...@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/23/2010 9:05:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> l...@main.put.com writes:
>
>
> > 1.Elizabeth II Alexandra Mary(born 21st April 1926)
> > 3.Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon(4th Aug 1900-30th Mar 2002)
> > 7.Cecilia Nina Cavendish-Bentinck(11th Sep 1862-23rd Jun 1938)
> > [Nina Cecilia to Burke's and Montague-Smith;Cecilia Nina
> > to Debrett's and at Hull;Cecilia,only,at Geocities]
> > *15.Caroline Louisa Burnaby(1832-1918)
> > [first missing birthday,first missing death day at Hull...Paget
> > says died |6th Jul| and that she was born 1833,Davies notes Dec
> > 5th 1832 baptism]
> > *31.Anne Caroline Salisbury(1806-3rd May 1881)
> > [Davies notes 5th Dec 1805 baptism record]

> > *63.Frances Webb [Paget and Geocities(which dates her ((1778-1854))) agree
> > as does Davies,who says ||baptized 12th Jun 1775,died 22nd Jan 1862||;
> > Mary Lister,says Paul Theroff]
> > *127.||Mary Garritt|| >>

> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> Of course, garbage in, garbage out.

> "Geocities" is not a source, it's a repository -- They host thousands of
> different sources, 99.9% of them worthless junk.

The "Geocities" site mentioned in my notes (no longer extant,
as Geocities closed down) was the royal ancestry page maintained
for years by Ken Stelmaszek,which had a lot of information,
not always credible.But where do you disagree with the data here?

> Family Gedcom postings are worthless junk.

My own lineages are sourced by a Norwegian tenth cousin,
if you're picking on that.There were church books and so
forth kept in the community where my mother's mother's
mother's mother's family has had a farm since the 16th
century.

> Hull is about as good as I can throw it across the room.

I know it's flawed,but my file began as a transcription of it,
into the Sosa-Kekule form for the Queen.

> Paget has so many errors, he should be taken out behind the barn.

All corrections are appreciated!

> There are worthwhile ways to achieve the same results. But if you source
> your information to OPG (other people's garbage), you're just going to have
> to start all over again when you realize it's garbage.

I've tried to collate everything out there and note discrepancies
and flaws.